My ideology is HONOUR and PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY; Whats Yours?
13 December 2011 | Andrea Muhrrteyn | Radical Honoursty
This draft is a work in progress -- an existential ideological working hypothesis truthseeking enquiry, to the question: Who Am I? -- and was first posted as a note to my facebook wall at Lara Zhivago; including a few of the Shibumi comments posted there to answer questions.
My ideology is HONOUR and PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY:
Whats your ideology: backstabbing lying two-faced coward; pretending to be a 'communist' or 'capitalist' or 'environmentalist' or 'socialist' or 'nationalist'?????
All of those 'ideologies' are nothing but tools: Use the appropriate tool (hammer/screwdriver) for the appropriate problem (nail/screw) and you solve your problem. Use a hammer on a screw, and you got yourself a never ending problem.
Same thing with ideologies: communism is wonderful for two people or more, who make a fully informed consensual agreement to pool their resources and reap the benefits from them (like couples do when they get married); and it is a fucked up ideology to force upon people who are not committed to contributing towards the resource pool.
Any ideology can work for any group of people when (A) all individuals are fully informed about what the definitions of the ideology entail: the ideologies social contact; (B) hence they are fully informed about what that ideologies rules are; (C) they are able to make fully informed consensual commitments and agreements to each other to abide by the particular ideologies rules; (D) the ideologies rules do not conflict with reality; particularly resource realities.
For an extreme example: Imagine you get 20 people who are cannibals: they like eating human meat. Knowing how much they enjoy eating another humans meat, they understand that another cannibal would get as much enjoyment from eating their own meat. They can establish a tribe whereby they have rules about how anyone gets chosen to be the next feast dinner meal. They can make rules on how they breed and educate their children about how and why they have the rules they do, and the benefits and liabilities. If everyone is clear about the rules, that enjoying another meat, which allows them to be a cannibal, also means one day, they shall be selected to be eaten and enjoyed in a particular feast. They are able to make fully informed decisions and commitment to join, they can be happy about eating each other, and about sacrificing themselves to be eaten by others, knowing their death is appreciated by their tribe. Everyone knows the rules, and everyone abides by the rules, even though some other tribe may think its a savage social contract, or whatever. The point is: (A) clear rules; (B) Fully informed consensual commitments agreement to the rules; (C) the rules apply to everyone, including leaders, nobody is excluded from the rules. CANNIBALISM can WORK! Any ideology can work.
Most ideologies do not work because: (A) the leaders prefer to use vague ambiguous terminology, for fear they shall not be able to get enough slaves and cannon fodder followers to make a commitment to joining their ideology tribe, so as to manipulate the rules that they are not beholden to the rules, but benefit from good rules, and are excluded from the rules they don't like, but expect all followers to follow; (B): hence the followers are unable to make fully informed decisions and hence their commitment is not sincere nor serious, and (C) the followers fight amongst themselves, because they are unclear about the rules; while the leaders live like parasites on the followers, while keeping the followers focused on arguing with each other, and not on the fact that the leaders ideological rules and definitions are deliberately vague, for the purpose of their benefit from the situation. This results in people becoming pissed off with their 'ideology' and turning to another ideology for answers, or digging in deeper and blaming the other ideolgies as being the causes of their problems. You heard the victim me pity parties: OH ITS THE JEWS.. , its the COMMIES.. its the CAPITALISTS... its the FEMINISTS... and on and on!! When the underlying problem is: NO HONOUR, NO HONESTY, NO CLARITY, NO CLEAR DEFINITIONS, NO FULLY INFORMED CONSENT.
It is never: WE HAVE MET THE PROBLEM AND IT IS US!! We are not committed to setting clear simple rules for our ideology (whatever the ideology is); establishing a tribe of members who all commit to the rules, and to making fully informed consensual agreements to abide by the rules.
I have no followers; cause my followers have to read my definitions for what I mean by honour, and they have to be very crystal clear about what I demand of a follower: I ain't interested in no ignorant schmuck who thinks they can pretend to join a ideology of 'honour' and 'personal responsibility' without knowing what is going to be required of them to do so. So they got to inform themselves.
HONOUR:
Brutal Honesty: A commitment to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, 24/07; to anyone and everyone; and to be committed to remain in a conversation with anyone who is also so committed, to resolve any misunderstanding to completion.
To look someone in the eye, and consider them worthy of my respect that they are intellectually, emotionally, psychologically and physically capable of hearing my honest opinion about any issue relating to our relationship or of interest at the time.
RESPECT:
I respect someone if I consider them intellectually, emotionally, and spiritually capable of hearing my honest opinion. I show respect to someone, by having the courage to inform them to their face of my honest opinion.
If I believe someone is unworthy of my respect (intellectually, emotionally or psychologically inferior); I am willing to disrespect them: to believe they are intellectually inferior and incapable of hearing or wanting to hear my honest opinion. I always get their consent that they wish to be disrespected: I ask them: Do you want to hear my honest opinion, or do you want me to lie to you with with two faced hypocrisy deception disrespect? Do you want me to kiss your ass with sycophancy; cause I think you are too moronically stupid to hear honesty?
It is my personal opinion that approximately 99% of citizens couldn’t give a sincere and serious flying fuck about solving the alleged problems they complain about. They are only interested in whining like goddamn fucking 13 year old spoilt brats who have not been brought up by an adult mother or father.
Any citizen who is serious about problem solving knows this:
- You have to accurately identify the SOURCE of the problem
- You have to possess the WILL TO ACT to eliminate the source of the problem
- If you lack the will to either accurately identify or eliminate the problem; it is far more honest for you to simply tell yourself: I AM NOT SERIOUS ABOUT SOLVING THIS PROBLEM. I should stop complaining about it being a problem.
Citizens don’t even lack the honour or integrity to do the latter: to admit that they are NOT SERIOUS ABOUT PROBLEM SOLVING; but that they are just a bunch of whining brats, who endlessly whine about problems they have NO interest or sincerity in fixing.
Instead they elect a bunch of farm managers for their problem farm, and blame the farm managers that there is not enough milk (for their pity me parties), or too much cow dung (crime). Most farm managers go along with this farming slavery plantation charade, because the slavery and cannon fodder plantation farming system has evolved to the point that nobody appointed to farm manager positions can in fact solve any of the problems. The good one’s do their best to mitigate the symptoms; and the corrupt ones just exploit their status as farm manager.
Group Problem Solving Requires Every Individual to (A) agree on the SOURCE of the problem; (B) have the will, or be willing to agree to mutual coercion at times when they are struggling; to ACT to eliminate the source of the problem.
In my personal opinion – based upon the evidence I have collected and analysed – most of these problems other citizens whine endlessly about are a result of (A) citizens who lack honourable problem solving skills; and (B) overpopulation colliding with declining or scarce resources.
Both of these are a direct and indirect result of citizens who have been bullshitted, bamboozled and lied to by their legal, political and religious farmers; who in turn were themselves bullshitted, bamboozled and lied to by their predecessors. The system may not have been devised to be a bullshitting, bamboozling and deception system, it may have simply evolved to such a state, as a result of ignorance, collective denial and the conformity and herdlike behaviour of humans in a crowd. The Pied Piper as such need not be any ‘evil individual’ or even ‘evil group of individuals’ but purely the ‘evil memes’ which we all allowed due to ignorance, self-deception, addiction to conformity, etc. to hijack our critical thinking faculties; to force us into ever tighter intellectual and relational straight-jackets.
Any individual sincerely or seriously committed to awakening his or her particular animal farm’s citizens to even consider the ideas that the source of their problems are a result of: (A) citizens who lack honourable problem solving skills and refuse any and every opportunity to learn problem solving skills; and (B) overpopulation colliding with declining or scarce resources; is going to be consciously or unconsciously ignored or crucified.
An analogy: Any serious and sincere ‘rehabilitation’ expert who has helped individuals to rehabilitate themselves from a life of crime and drugs, like Delancey Street has; can tell you that you cannot help anyone addicted drugs, until they themselves have hit rock bottom, to such a horrific extent, that they finally get slapped in the face with their problem, and decide they are serious about needing help to help themselves.
The ultimate lesson being: YOU CANNOT HELP ANY ADDICT TO OVERCOME THEIR ADDICTION; IF THEY ARE NOT DEAD FUCKING SERIOUS ABOUT WANTING TO BE HELPED.
The worlds farms are populated by citizens of which I’d guess about 92% are HAPPILY addicted to being Duhmockery lied to, bamboozled and deceived.
That’s fine, but I am not going to wrap myself in a fucking straight-jacket to run for office of being some kind of 'leader', to promise a bunch of 13 year old brats, more bullshit for free shit; on a planet that is experiencing overpopulation with declining resources.
» » » » [Lara Zhivago]
Shibumi in Radical Honesty
Akira Kurosawa - Seven Samurai (Shichinin no Samurai) (1954) (04:11): Seven Samurai is frequently described as one of the greatest and most influential films ever made. Akira Kurosawas Seven Samurai (Shichinin no samurai) tells the story of a sixteenth-century village whose desperate inhabitants hire the eponymous warriors to protect them from invading bandits. |
In the teaching of the practice of Radical Honesty, Brad Blanton refers to Seven Samurai: The story about the Samurai, hired to protect some farmers, and his subsequent choice to find 'followers/colleagues' (other Samurai) to accomplish his task of protecting the farmers from their crops being raided.
He put a samurai in the doorway behind a curtain, with instructions to chop off the head of new recruits walking in the room; and if the new recruit was enough in their body/senses (not their abstract mind - illusion) to sense the samurai's attack, and blocked it, then they would be hired.
In Radical Honesty sense it is the principle of interrupting our minds, by our senses. Using our senses as our primary guidance, not our minds illusions.
One of my interpretations of he Japanese word for this 'state of being' -- of living in your senses, not in your minds illusions -- is the word SHIBUMI.Kambei Shimada: As a matter of fact, I'm preparing for a tough war. It will bring us neither money nor fame. Want to join?
Shichirōji: Yes!
Kambei Shimada: Maybe we die this time.
Shichirōji: (smiles)
---- Seven Samurai, an epic film about the extinction of the Samurai culture
» » » » [Radical Honesty]
Shibumi, by Trevanian
Shibumi is a novel issued in 1979, written in English by Trevanian, a pseudonym of Rodney William Whitaker, an American academic who remained mysterious throughout most of his life. Shibumi is set in the 1970s and details the struggle between the "Mother Company", a conspiracy of energy companies that secretly controls much of the western world, and a highly-skilled assassin, Nicholaï Hel.
Excerpt between Nicholai and his General mentor about Shibumi:". . . Tell me, Nikko. Will you miss Shanghai?"
Nicholai considered for a second. "No."
"Will you feel lonely in Japan?"
Nicholai considered for a second. "Yes."
"I shall write to you."
"Often?"
"No, not often. Once a month. But you must write to me as often as you feel the need to. Perhaps you will be less lonely than you fear. There are other young people studying with Otake-san. And when you have doubts, ideas, questions, you will find Otake-san a valuable person to discuss them with. He will listen with interest, but will not burden you with advice." The General smiled. "Although I think you may find one of my friend's habits of speech a little disconcerting at times. He speaks of everything in terms of Go. All of life, for him, is a simplified paradigm of Go".
"He sounds as though I shall like him, sir."
"I am sure you will. He is a man who has all my respect. He possesses a quality of . . . how to express it? . . . of shibumi."
"Shibumi, sir?" Nicholai knew the word, but only as it applied to gardens or architecture, where it connoted an understated beauty. "How are you using the term, sir?"
"Oh, vaguely. And incorrectly, I suspect. A blundering attempt to describe an ineffable quality. As you know, shibumi has to do with great refinement underlying commonplace appearances. It is a statement so correct that it does not have to be bold, so poignant it does not have to be pretty, so true it does not have to be real. Shibumi is understanding, rather than knowledge. Eloquent silence. In demeanor, it is modesty without pudency. In art, where the spirit of shibumi takes the form of sabi, it is elegant simplicity, articulate brevity. In philosophy, where shibumi emerges as wabi, it is spiritual tranquility that is not passive; it is being without the angst of becoming. And in the personality of a man, it is . . . how does one say it? Authority without domination? Something like that."
Nicholai's imagination was galvanized by the concept of shibumi. No other ideal had ever touched him so. "How does one achieve this shibumi, sir?"
"One does not achieve it, one . . . discovers it. And only a few men of infinite refinement ever do that. Men like my friend Otake-san."
"Meaning that one must learn a great deal to arrive at shibumi?"
"Meaning, rather, that one must pass through knowledge and arrive at simplicity."
Plot
Nicholaï Hel is an assassin, born in Shanghai in the 1930s and raised in a cosmopolitian fashion by his mother, a deposed member of the Russian aristrocracy and a general in the Japanese Imperial Army who has been billeted in Nicholaï's mansion. Under the general, Hel is introduced to the concept of shibumi and the game go, eventually being sent to Japan, where he trains under a famous master of the game, becoming 'culturally Japanese'. The master of this school discovers Nicholai's ability to mentally escape from reality and come back rested and refreshed. When Japan surrenders in 1945, Hel, after long months of hunger, finds (thanks to his knowledge of many languages) a job as an interpreter in the US Occupation Army and becomes a decoder agent in United States Intelligence.
Hel learns that the general who raised him is being held as a prisoner of war by the Russians and faces an ignominious show-trial for war crimes, and decides that the only way he can show his gratitude for the man's raising him in Shanghai is to kill him and help him avoid the embarrassment of the trial. He achieves this through his skills at the art of "Naked/Kill", a martial discipline that trains in the use of ordinary items as instruments of death. Hel is then tortured by the Americans and held in solitary confinement without trial, Hel being a citizen of no country. In prison, his physical and mental discipline, along with studying the Basque language from some old books abandoned by a missionary, help him to retain his sanity, although, due to the torture and drugs used in his interrogation, he is no longer able to fully escape mentally and reach his state of peaceful ecstasy. He even develops, in his solitude, a "proximity sense" through which he is aware of any being drawing near (along with its amicable or hostile intentions), and which also allows him to find his way in complete darkness.
After three years, Hel is recruited out of his cell by the US Intelligence Service. They are in desperate need of an agent able to cause severe discord between Russia and China. They need someone who has nothing to lose, who has European features, and can speak fluent Chinese and Russian. Hel succeeds in his mission, taking for payment the names and locations of those who tortured him, and goes on to become one of the highest-paid and most skillful assassin in the world.
The novel begins with Hel, retired in his late fifties in a small castle overlooking a village of the Haute-Soule, in the mountainous Northern Basque Country. He is an honorary member of the local Basque population, and his best friend among them is Beñat Le Cagot, a truculent Basque nationalist and bard, with whom he shares an immense love for freedom and an addiction to spelunking. Hel thinks he is now allowed to enjoy life in a shibui way (mingling discreet epicureanism with fatalism and detachment) and he slowly improves his Japanese garden, enjoys restrictive gastronomy, and practices highly esoteric sex with his concubine.
Hel's shibumi existence is interrupted by the arrival of the niece of a man who saved Hel's life many years ago, herself the only survivor of a Jewish commando unit which took up arms to terminate the last of the Black September terrorists, the rest of the small unit having been gunned down in an Italian airport by agents of the CIA, acting on behalf of the Mother Company, a vast conglomerate of energy interests that control much of the western world. She begs Hel to help her finish her mission and eliminate the terrorists, and gain revenge on the Mother Company.
Structure
Philosophy: Professor Kagan explores the issue of how confronting the reality of death; influences the way in which we choose to live. (47:50) |
Shibumi is, broadly, a parody of the spy novel genre, but Trevanian also incorporated pieces of philosophy and highly-specific cultural observations in the work, most obviously with his portrayals of American (and, more generally, western) culture after World War II. Trevanian himself echoed his hero Hel's dislike of western materialism in the few interviews he gave to the press.
The book contains 6 chapters of unequal length, each of them bearing the name of a go game figure:
- Fuseki: The opening stage of a game when the entire board is taken into account.
- Sabaki: An attempt to dispose of a troublesome situation in a quick and flexible way.
- Seki: A neutral situation in which neither side has the advantage. A "Mexican stand-off."
- Uttegae: A sacrifice play, a gambit.
- Shicho: A running attack.
- Tsuru no Sugomori: "The confinement of the cranes to their nest," a graceful maneuver in which the enemy stones are captured.
Trevanian's (Whitaker's) character Hel was supposed, in the novel, to have written an analysis of Go which was in fact a spoof of the game. In the book-within-a-book, the commentator's attempts to attach spurious significance of life and philosophy to what were, in fact, clumsy and amateurish maneuvers was a part of the satire. The use of subtly mis-stated Go figures to rationalize the structure of a novel that was in itself a spoof of the highly rationalized incompetence of people who believe they run the world is an indisposable pillar of the satire.
» » » » [Wikipedia :: Trevanian]
Shibumi as per: New England Shotokan Karate Master: Shihan Kenneth Funakosh
The Strategic Rational Logic of Suicide Bombers (04:16): “In my opinion, even suicide bombers are rational people. It is a fatal mistake to consider them irrational. Their goals are not personal goals but their acts would be very rational given their ideologies. Rationality is not a stamp of approval, it is a description. Rationality is orthogonal to the idea of good and bad.” -- Robert J. Aumann (Co-winner of 2005 Nobel Prize for contribution to game theory & war). |
Shibumi is a Japanese word meaning refined simplicity, simple elegance and quiet perfection. It is a highly prized quality that few Americans and Europeans understand or appreciate. Shibumi has nothing to do with the flashy, decorative beauty admired in the west but refers to a clean, simple, restrained sense of distinction, refinement and taste. Shimbumi is strict, thrifty and without tournament.
You can see shibumi in every facet of Japanese culture. It is reflected in the simplicity of Japanese art, calligraphy, rock gardens and modest décor of their homes. However, nowhere is shibumi more strongly reflected than in traditional martial arts of karate. You see the simple atmosphere of the dojo. The gi and emblem and the effectiveness of the classical techniques.
It is hard to find shibumi in open American karate. Today’s karate-ka wears flashy uniforms use showy gymnastic movements, flurries of techniques but they are not tastefully refined according to tradition. A simple perfectly executed, killing or disabling blow that was perfected over years of repetition has a special beauty in its effectiveness that is shibumi. Today tournament competitors wear colorful costumes with their large emblems and monograms. These modern and younger masters compete with each other for higher ranks even wider, multicolored, striped belts. Meanwhile the traditional sensei outshines them all in a plain, white unadorned gi with one emblem, bound by a simple worn out black belt. This is shibumi.
Warriors (samurai or serious traditional martial artists) pursue shibumi in and out of the dojo. They strive to find that essence of quality, simple and elegant, in everything they do.
Warriors walk quietly into crowded rooms but people are still aware of his presence.
These people stand straight and project a confidence and posture from years of disciplined training. Their minds are alert to the people and surroundings due to zanshin training. They do not join in cliques because “they stand alone” but they recognize, respect and gravitate toward one another. Only warriors understand other warriors. (Only karate people understand karate people. Everybody else thinks we are crazy).
Warriors are never the life of the party. They do not like to draw attention by talking about themselves or their accomplishments. A true champion never boasts, they are humble. They are not interested in small talk and speak only when they have something meaningful to say. When they speak their voices are steady but not loud, confident but not arrogant, bold but not disrespectful. They shake your hand with a nice grip (but not painful). They look at you in the eyes, and you feel an energy you cannot describe. These people practice the traditional martial arts, the way and shibumi. These people keep dignity, sincerity, humility, etiquette, perfection and character alive in the society as well as in the arts.
Developing shibumi is a slow process for the westerner. It is taught in the east early in childhood. You cannot fake it; it must come naturally from years of training. It is a combination of intense physical, mental and spiritual training and you must consciously practice shibumi every day. Learn to avoid the kinds of behavior that make you foolish and be a man or women of substance. Do not only look good on the outside; it is the inside that counts (do not only be a model). Face reality and do not deny everything. Know your limitations as well as your potential (realistically). Do not make excuses, do not fake it if you do not know it. Act your age, do not be someone you are not.
Practice good posture to show confidence and leadership. Practice grace in your movements to show an expression of physical and spiritual power – the product of strength, coordination and perfect balance.
» » » » [New England Shotokan]
9 comments:
"All of those 'ideologies' are nothing but tools: Use the appropriate tool (hammer/screwdriver) for the appropriate problem (nail/screw) and you solve your problem. Use a hammer on a screw, and you got yourself a never ending problem."
This about sums it up for me, and is something I was trying to communicate at Amerika.org before I get fed up with their bullshit and they banned me. What ideology a person subscribes to is largely inconsequential compared to whether they conduct themselves with integrity/personal accountability. I am curious though, do you support the actions of Anders Brevik? The impression I get is that you neither condemn nor condone, personally I can't see how it could be regarded as anything other than self-defeating insanity. You don't have to be a genius to see how his attack will only result in a massive upswing of (support for) liberalism while isolating genuine conservatives by making their ideology appear violent.
I am curious though, do you support the actions of Anders Brevik?
I support every individuals right to a free and fair trial. I have not heard Anders Breivik testify on his own behalf, or be interviewed. All information has been by third parties, none of whom I imagine are totally impartial. If he was acting on the legal principles of political necessity (necessity is common law principle; and political necessity is a legal principle frequently used by activists when they break one law, citing obedience to a higher law), his actions may have been justified, based upon the evidence available to him. Until I hear his evidence and arguments, my opinion is not fully informed.
The impression I get is that you neither condemn nor condone, personally I can't see how it could be regarded as anything other than self-defeating insanity.
I am not aware of any scientific evidence that such a thing as 'insanity' exists. I am aware of millions of people who accuse anyone they disagree with, who are too intellectually lazy to enquire into another persons ideas, evidence, or justifications for their behaviour as being 'insane'.
You don't have to be a genius to see how his attack will only result in a massive upswing of (support for) liberalism while isolating genuine conservatives by making their ideology appear violent.
Frankly: How do you define a genuine conservative? According to my definition of a genuine conservative, they are interested in sincerity and reality, not bullshit the public relations appearances.
I don't judge any group of people from any race, religion or culture based upon the behaviour of one of those individuals.
Perhaps you are projecting your judgement of groups of individuals, based upon the behaviour of one or more individuals?
"I am not aware of any scientific evidence that such a thing as 'insanity' exists."
I am. The definition I was referring to is also called pathology, which is repeating an action and expecting a different result. Not technically applicable since Breivik's attack was a one off, but maybe so in the sense that history shows other isolated instances of terrorism typically isolate/stigmatise an idea even while bringing attention to it. At any rate that was a clearly self-evident result of his actions, while I'm sure support for the hard-right has increased, it has no doubt reduced support for the moderate right, thus strengthening the left.
"Frankly: How do you define a genuine conservative?"
I don't, but what I meant was someone who genuinely holds conservative beliefs and that is what motivates them to act in a method that will further their cause rather than a narcissistic, drug-influenced massacre for achieving fame which will only impede any real talk on race relations and has indisputably isolated the right in Norway and much of Europe.
"According to my definition of a genuine conservative, they are interested in sincerity and reality, not bullshit the public relations appearances."
By this I assume you mean all leftists only care about public relations/political correctness as opposed to reality, which is bullshit. Additionally self-proclaimed conservatives are just as if not more concerned with their image then anyone else, the fact this is done by wearing their 'ideology' like a badge rather than living it or through trendy clothes/music just makes it seem even more pathetic.
"I don't judge any group of people from any race, religion or culture based upon the behaviour of one of those individuals."
No, just the most extreme/violent individuals of that race/religion no?
"Perhaps you are projecting your judgement of groups of individuals, based upon the behaviour of one or more individuals?"
No. You seem to be doing that yourself quite a lot though.
Definition of Insanity: I am. The definition I was referring to is also called pathology, which is repeating an action and expecting a different result.
By that definition the Wright brothers would be considered pathological, for doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. If you agree that they only changed a very small factor of their overal act, and hence because that very minimal change the action should not essentially (according to the defintion) be considered 'exactly the same act' as previous.
By that same definition, anyone else's act, if changed by minor factors. A murderer uses a knife once, and then changes to a rifle, and then to a sniper rifle and then to a bazooka, are all different acts.
If you refuse to see it that way, then by your own definition, thousands and thousands of individuals who do the same thing day after day, expecting different results, should also be deemed insane.
I am not afraid of hearing other people's points of views; no matter how different they are, so I abstain from calling anyone 'insane'. I think only intellectual midgets afraid to make full enquiries into views other than their own, resort to name calling like 'insane'.
Not technically applicable since Breivik's attack was a one off, but maybe so in the sense that history shows other isolated instances of terrorism typically isolate/stigmatise an idea even while bringing attention to it.
So you don't see any difference whatsoever in these different terrorist acts?
At any rate that was a clearly self-evident result of his actions, while I'm sure support for the hard-right has increased, it has no doubt reduced support for the moderate right, thus strengthening the left.
I don't subscribe to left right political bullshit.
"Frankly: How do you define a genuine conservative?"
I don't, but what I meant was someone who genuinely holds conservative beliefs and that is what motivates them to act in a method that will further their cause rather than a narcissistic, drug-influenced massacre for achieving fame which will only impede any real talk on race relations and has indisputably isolated the right in Norway and much of Europe.
How do you define 'conservative beliefs'?
I ain't ever had any problem having any sincere race relations conversation with anyone else sincerely interested in a race relations conversation, irrespective what they consider their ideological belief to be.
"According to my definition of a genuine conservative, they are interested in sincerity and reality, not bullshit the public relations appearances."
By this I assume you mean all leftists only care about public relations/political correctness as opposed to reality, which is bullshit.
Your assumption is incorrect. I think there are sincere leftists and sincere rightists, sincere muslims, sincere christians, etc... and there are insincere (all of the above). Read again what I wrote, and quote accurately. that will demonstrate your sincerity.
"I don't judge any group of people from any race, religion or culture based upon the behaviour of one of those individuals."
No, just the most extreme/violent individuals of that race/religion no?
No. I judge every individual based upon their character, their honesty and sincerity. Don't care what ideology, race, religion, etc., they come from.
"Perhaps you are projecting your judgement of groups of individuals, based upon the behaviour of one or more individuals?"
No. You seem to be doing that yourself quite a lot though.
My statement was a question. As in I don't know the answer, I am giving one option that could possibly be an answer to the question.
You seem to be making an allegation? If so, it implies you know the answer, and you have evidence and are stating your conclusion. If so, fair enough. Provide the evidence for your allegation, and I shall be happy to make an enquiry into it.
Post a Comment